ArticleSurgery today2026
Appendiceal diverticular disease: evaluation of the clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings in 153 patients.
Article in Surgery today, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAppendiceal diverticular disease (ADD) is an uncommon condition that may clinically and radiologically mimic acute appendicitis and it is associated with a high risk of perforation. Limited awareness and diagnostic challenges frequently result in a diagnosis only after histopathological examination.
methodsAmong 6,853 emergency appendectomies performed between January 2015 and June 2024, 153 patients with histopathologically confirmed ADD were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The demographic data, clinical presentation, imaging findings, operative outcomes, and pathological characteristics were reviewed. All CT scans and pathology slides were re-evaluated by gastrointestinal radiologists and a gastrointestinal pathologist. The diverticula were classified according to the Lipton system.
resultsThe frequency of ADD detection in histopathological reports was 2.23%. The mean age was 40.5 ± 15.0 years, and 60.8% of the patients were male. Acquired diverticula predominated (99.3%), with type 2 being the most common subtype (68.6% of cases). Perforation was identified intraoperatively in 32.7% and histologically in 40.5% of the cases, occurring almost exclusively in type 1 and type 2 diverticula. ADD was not diagnosed on initial emergency CT reports. However, a retrospective review identified diverticula in 59.1% of cases, most commonly cystic and located at the appendiceal apex. No malignancies were detected.
conclusionADD is a rare but clinically important entity with high perforation rates and substantial diagnostic limitations in routine imaging. Multidisciplinary reassessment improves the diagnostic accuracy and it may support optimized management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42165855What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.